US Protest Law Tracker

S 3942 / HR 7799: New criminal and civil liability for fiscal sponsors of projects involving protest activity

Would expose fiscal sponsors to expanded criminal and civil liability for conduct by groups or projects they support, including protest-related activity. The bill, entitled the “Stop Proxy Organizations Nurturing Subversive Operations and Riots (SPONSOR) Act,” would make 501(c)(3) organizations that provide fiscal sponsorship criminally liable for offenses “related to or arising from” the sponsorship. It would also create civil liability for any “covered activity” that is “related to or arising from” the sponsorship. The bill defines “covered activity” to include “physically blocking” any article in commerce “to intentionally prevent the lawful movement” of commerce. Because street protests may delay traffic or commercial activity, this provision could sweep in nonviolent protest activity. Under current law, in some fiscal sponsorship arrangements, the sponsors may already bear liability for unlawful conduct by the sponsored project. The bill would expand such liability to all models of fiscal sponsorship, including arrangements where the sponsor merely provides grants or administrative support to a separate entity. It would also create new grounds for civil liability linked to protest-related activity. As a result, if a fiscally sponsored project organized a peaceful protest that temporarily blocked traffic, the sponsor could face civil lawsuits or potential criminal exposure. Sponsors of the bill described it as legislation to “hold sponsors of violent protests accountable.”

Status: pending

Introduced 26 Feb 2026.

Issue(s): Protest Supporters or Funders, Traffic Interference

HR 5721: Federal penalties for protests near judges and court officers

Would create a new federal offense that could cover protesters who demonstrate near federal judges, jurors, or court staff, regardless of their intent. Under current law, it is illegal to demonstrate or use a sound-amplification device “in or near a building or residence used by” a federal judge, juror, witness or court officer—only if one does so with the intention of influencing them or otherwise “interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice.” The bill would remove this intent requirement such that the offense could cover protesters who demonstrate in or near any building or residence that they know is occupied by a judge, juror, witness or court officer, regardless of their purpose for doing so. So, for instance, someone could face federal penalties if they knowingly protest outside a restaurant where a judge is eating, even if they are demonstrating about an issue unrelated to a court case.

Status: pending

Introduced 8 Oct 2025.

HR 4846: Creating an affirmative defense for drivers who hit protesters

According to the bill's title, it would create an affirmative defense in criminal and civil cases related to "motor vehicle incidents" involving someone who is convicted of "riot." In social media posts, the bill's sponsor said it would "allow Americans to run over" people protesting in the street.  

Status: pending

Introduced 1 Aug 2025.

Issue(s): Driver Immunity, Riot

S 2376 / HR 4620: Racketeering penalties for those connected to "riot" offenses

Would add rioting-related offenses to the list of predicate offenses under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). Under the bill, entitled the "Stop Financial Underwriting of Nefarious Demonstrations and Extremist Riots" (Stop FUNDERS) Act, an organization or individual found to have "conspired" with individuals to engage in or encourage a protest that is deemed a "riot" could be prosecuted under RICO. Sponsors of the bill cited entities that fund or coordinate protests as potential targets for the legislation. A violation of RICO can lead to up to 20 years in prison and seizure of assets. Third parties can also bring civil suits if injured by a RICO violation and potentially receive treble damages. 

Status: pending

Introduced 22 Jul 2025.

Issue(s): Civil Liability, Protest Supporters or Funders, Riot

HR 4232: Stripping nonprofit status and federal funding of organizations connected to obstruction or "riot" offenses

Would revoke the tax-exempt status and prohibit federal funding of an organization if an officer of the organization or a member of its board of directors is convicted of an offense under Sections 111 or 2101 of U.S. Code Title 18. Section 111 makes it a crime to assault, resist, oppose, impede, intimidate, or interfere with certain federal officers and employees. The federal government has used Section 111 to charge protesters who have, for example, blocked the path of federal law enforcement. Section 2101 includes a number of rioting offenses, including inciting, participating in, or encouraging a "riot" or aiding or abetting any person inciting or participating in a "riot;" the underlying federal definition of "riot" is broad, moreover, and requires only a “public disturbance” where one individual in a group commits violence. Under the proposed law, if an officer or board member is convicted of violating Section 111 or 2101, even if they were acting independently of their work with a nonprofit, the organization could lose its tax-exempt status and federal funding.

Status: pending

Introduced 27 Jun 2025.

Issue(s): Protest Supporters or Funders, Police Response, Riot, Limit on Public Benefits

HR 4053: Barring small business aid to individuals convicted of "riot" offenses

Would bar individuals convicted of “riot” offenses from receiving small business assistance from the federal government. The bill provides that a person convicted of a felony for actions during or “in connection with” a riot is prohibited from participating in any program run by the Small Business Administration, if the riot resulted in the destruction of a small business. The definition of “riot” under federal law is broad, requiring only a “public disturbance” where one individual in a group commits violence. An individual can be convicted of participating or inciting a “riot” based on conduct that was neither violent nor destructive. Under the bill, individuals convicted of such offenses would become ineligible for support such as disaster relief loans and other small business assistance. The same bill was introduced as HR 6653 in 2022. 

Status: pending

Introduced 17 Jun 2025.

Issue(s): Riot, Limit on Public Benefits

HR 4015 / S 2115: Federal penalties for protesters who block traffic

Would create federal penalties for protesters who block public roads and highways. Under the bill, it would be a federal crime to “in any way or degree, purposely obstruct, delay, or affect commerce or the movement of any article or commodity in commerce by blocking a public road or highway.” The offense would also cover individuals who merely “attempt” or “conspire” to block a public road or highway. The offense would be punishable by an unspecified fine and up to 5 years in federal prison. The same bill was introduced as S 3492 / HR 6926 in the 2023 session.

Status: pending

Introduced 13 Jun 2025.

Issue(s): Protest Supporters or Funders, Traffic Interference

S 2001: Providing for deportation of non-citizens who commit protest-related offenses

Would cancel the visa of any individual convicted of protest-related crimes and provide for the individual’s deportation within 60 days. Under the bill, individuals convicted of any “crime (i) related to [their] conduct at and during the course of a protest; (ii) involving the defacement, vandalism, or destruction of Federal property; or (iii) involving the intentional obstruction of any highway, road, bridge, or tunnel” would be deportable. The bill requires that such individuals’ visas be “immediately” cancelled and the individuals removed from the US within 60 days. If enacted, a non-citizen convicted of even a nonviolent misdemeanor “related to” a protest, such as trespass or disorderly conduct, could face deportation. The bill’s sponsor cited protests around immigration raids in Los Angeles as the impetus for his bill.

Status: pending

Introduced 10 Jun 2025.

Issue(s): Traffic Interference

S 2000: Heightened penalties for "riot" offenses

Would amend the federal anti-rioting law to raise the maximum penalty to ten years in prison, instead of five, for participating in or inciting a “riot,” or aiding or abetting someone to do so. The federal definition of “riot” is broad, requiring only a “public disturbance” where one individual in a group commits violence. Under the bill, someone who committed or abetted an “act of violence” during the commission of a “riot” offense would face a minimum one-year sentence, while an individual who assaulted a law enforcement officer would face a sentence of at least one year and up to life in prison. Federal law defines “act of violence” broadly to include using force against property—or just attempting or threatening to use such force. As such, if enacted, the bill could result in steep criminal penalties for protesters who do not actually engage in violence or destructive conduct. The bill’s sponsor cited protests around immigration raids in Los Angeles as the impetus for his bill.

Status: pending

Introduced 10 Jun 2025.

Issue(s): Riot

HR 3859: Providing for deportation of non-citizens who commit protest-related offenses

Would make deportable noncitizens who commit or “admit to” certain offenses that can occur during protests. Under the bill, a noncitizen could be deported if she is convicted of or “admits to having committed” participation in a “riot” under federal, state, or local law, or an act that “involves” using force against a law enforcement officer, or an act that “involves” vandalism of public property. The bill would apply to undocumented immigrants as well as lawful residents. Such individuals would be ineligible for asylum or other discretionary relief; they would be subject to detention throughout removal proceedings and, if deported, would be permanently barred from reentering the U.S. The bill would seemingly grant discretion to executive branch authorities, rather than a court, to determine that someone “admitted” to an offense or other act specified under the bill. Further, “riot” is broadly defined under federal and many state laws, such that it can cover individuals who are not engaged in violence. For instance, if enacted, authorities could seek to deport a noncitizen who posted on social media that she attended a protest that local police deemed a “riot” based on others' conduct. The bill’s sponsor cited protests in Los Angeles against federal immigration raids and arrests as motivation for the bill.

Status: pending

Introduced 10 Jun 2025.

Issue(s): Riot

HR 2272: Blocking financial aid to students who commit a "riot"-related offense

Would bar federal financial assistance and loan forgiveness for any student convicted of a crime in connection with a “riot.” The bar would apply to students convicted of “rioting” or “a) inciting a riot; b) organizing, promoting, encouraging, participating in, or carrying on a riot; c) committing any act of violence in furtherance of a riot; or d) aiding or abetting any person in inciting or participating in or carrying on a riot or committing any act of violence in furtherance of a riot.” Many states define “riot” broadly enough to cover peaceful protest activity; many also have broad laws criminalizing “incitement to riot” that cover protected expression. The bill would bar financial aid and loan forgiveness for students convicted under such provisions. As written, the bill would also bar financial aid and loan forgiveness to students convicted of any offense related to “organizing, promoting, encouraging” a riot, or “aiding and abetting” incitement or participation in a riot, which could cover an even wider range of expressive conduct, from sharing a social media post to cheering on demonstrators in a protest that was deemed a “riot.”

Status: pending

Introduced 21 Mar 2025.

Issue(s): Campus Protests, Riot, Limit on Public Benefits

HR 2273: Providing for visa revocation and deportation of noncitizens who commit a "riot"-related offense

Would require the Secretary of State to revoke the visa of and make deportable a noncitizen student, scholar, teacher, or specialist convicted of a crime in connection with a “riot.” Under the bill, individuals in the US on an F-1, J-1, or M-1 visa would have their visas revoked and would be deportable if they were convicted of “rioting” or “a) inciting a riot; b) organizing, promoting, encouraging, participating in, or carrying on a riot; c) committing any act of violence in furtherance of a riot; or d) aiding or abetting any person in inciting or participating in or carrying on a riot or committing any act of violence in furtherance of a riot.” Many states define “riot” broadly enough to cover peaceful protest activity; many also have broad laws criminalizing “incitement to riot” that cover protected expression. The bill would provide for the deportation of foreign students, scholars, and others convicted under such provisions. As written, the bill would also provide for their deportation if convicted of any offense related to “organizing, promoting, encouraging” a riot, or “aiding and abetting” incitement or participation in a riot, which could cover an even wider range of expressive conduct, from sharing a social media post to cheering on demonstrators in a protest that was deemed a “riot.” 

Status: pending

Introduced 21 Mar 2025.

Issue(s): Campus Protests, Riot

S 1017: New federal criminal penalties for protests near pipelines

Would create a new federal felony offense that could apply to protests of planned or operational pipelines. The bill would broadly criminalize under federal law “knowingly and willfully” “vandalizing, tampering with, disrupting the operation or construction of, or preventing the operation or construction of” a gas pipeline. A range of peaceful activities could be deemed “disrupting… the construction of” a pipeline, from a rally that obstructs a road used by construction equipment, to a lawsuit challenging a pipeline’s permit or zoning approval. The bill does not define “disrupt,” such that even a brief delay would seemingly be covered. Further, the underlying law provides that any "attempt" or "conspiracy" to commit the offense would be punished the same as actual commission. As such, individuals as well as organizations that engage in the planning or facilitation of a protest that is deemed to “disrupt” pipeline construction could be covered. The offense would be punishable by up to 20 years in prison and a fine of up to $250,000 for an individual, or $500,000 for an organization.

Status: pending

Introduced 13 Mar 2025.

Issue(s): Protest Supporters or Funders, Infrastructure

S 982: Potential penalties for universities based on protest policies

Would make federal accreditation of colleges and universities—and thus their access to federal funds—contingent on the institution’s policies on responding to protests. Under the “No Tax Dollars for College Encampments Act of 2024,” universities would have to regularly disclose how they respond to campus “incidents of civil disturbance,” defined to include “a demonstration, riot, or strike,” and their accreditation would be linked to such policies and practices. The bill sponsor cited pro-Palestine campus protests as motivation for the bill; he introduced the same bill in 2024. 

Status: pending

Introduced 12 Mar 2025.

Issue(s): Campus Protests, Riot

HR 2065: Harsh penalties for protesters who conceal their identity

Would make it a federal crime, subject to a lengthy prison sentence, to wear a mask or other disguise while protesting in an "intimidating" or “oppressive” way. Under the “Unmasking Hamas Act,” anyone "in disguise, including while wearing a mask" who "injures, oppresses, threatens, or intimidates any person" exercising their constitutional rights could be sentenced to up to 15 years in prison as well as fined. The bill does not define “oppress,” nor does the bill specify what is meant by “disguise,” other than that it includes a “mask.” The bill’s substantive provisions are identical to the “Unmasking Antifa Act,” which lawmakers have introduced in several previous sessions. Sponsors of the bill made clear that it is a response to pro-Palestine protesters, some of whom have worn masks to avoid retaliation.

Status: pending

Introduced 11 Mar 2025.

Issue(s): Face Covering

S 937: Barring student protesters from federal loans and loan forgiveness

Would exclude student protesters from federal financial aid and loan forgiveness if they commit any crime at a campus protest. The bill would cover someone convicted of “any offense” under “any Federal or State law” that is “related to the individual’s conduct at and during the course of a protest” at a college or university. As such, a student convicted of even a nonviolent, state law misdemeanor at a campus protest, such as failing to disperse, would be deemed ineligible for federal student loans; they would also be ineligible for having existing federal loans forgiven, cancelled, waived or modified. The sponsor of the bill said it was a response to pro-Palestine protests at colleges and universities.

Status: pending

Introduced 11 Mar 2025.

Issue(s): Campus Protests, Limit on Public Benefits

HR 1057: Penalties for protesters on interstate highways

Would create steep new penalties for protesters deemed to be “deliberately delaying traffic,” “standing or approaching a motor vehicle,” or “endangering the safe movement of a motor vehicle” on an interstate highway “with the intent to obstruct the free, convenient, and normal use of the interstate highway.” The new federal offense would be punishable by up to $10,000 and 15 years in prison—a far harsher penalty than is the case under many states' laws, which generally already criminalize walking or standing on the highway. The bill provides an exception for “any lawful activity” authorized by federal, state, or local law. However, it could still seemingly cover far more than “blocking” the interstate, including a peaceful protest on the shoulder of an interstate or a convoy-style, driving protest that slowed traffic. The sponsor of the bill made clear that it was in response to protesters. The same bill was introduced as HR 7349 in 2024. 

Status: pending

Introduced 6 Feb 2025.

Issue(s): Traffic Interference

HB 2357: New penalties for protests that block traffic

Would create a new felony offense for protests that block traffic on highways and other busy roadways for more than five minutes. Existing Illinois law already prohibits protests or other assemblies on roadways without a permit or other permission from law enforcement, and requires that such assemblies not obstruct pedestrian or car traffic “in an unreasonable manner;” violations are a Class A misdemeanor offense. Under the bill, blocking “an exceptionally busy public right-of-way” for more than five minutes in a way that prevents “or would prevent” passage of an emergency vehicle, is a Class 4 felony. As written, the felony offense applies regardless of whether an emergency vehicle was actually blocked, or whether the roadway was “exceptionally busy” at the time it was blocked. “Exceptionally busy public right-of-way” is defined as a public road that typically carries at least 24,000 cars daily. The bill would also newly preempt cities and counties from enforcing a more lenient rule related to protests and demonstrations on roadways. The same bill was introduced as HB 5819 during the 2023-2024 session. 

Status: pending

Introduced 4 Feb 2025.

Issue(s): Traffic Interference

HB 1480: New penalties for protests near critical infrastructure

Would create a new felony offense that could cover nonviolent protesters at pipeline and other infrastructure sites. Under the bill, someone who knowingly “vandalizes, defaces, tampers with” or damages part of a critical infrastructure facility commits a felony. If the “value of the property” (not the cost of the damage) is less than $500, the offense is a Class 4 felony, punishable by 1-3 years in prison and up to $20,000; if the property value is $500-$10,000, it is a Class 3 felony (2-5 years and $20,000); and if the property value exceeds $10,000, it is a Class 2 felony (3-7 years and $20,000). The bill newly defines "critical infrastructure facility" under Illinois law to include gas and oil pipelines and a range of pipeline-related facilities, as well as electric, water, telecommunications, railroad, and “health care” facilities, regardless of whether they are fenced off or clearly marked with signs. As such, a protester who chalked or spraypainted a pipeline without damaging its functionality could face felony charges and a lengthy prison sentence if convicted. The bill extends liability to anyone who “conspires with” a person to commit the offense. It also provides that critical infrastructure owners can sue for punitive and compensatory damages. The same bill was introduced as HB 4746 in the 2023-2024 session. 

Status: pending

Introduced 21 Jan 2025.

Issue(s): Civil Liability, Protest Supporters or Funders, Infrastructure

SB 500: Civil immunity for drivers and others who hurt protesters

Would shield people from civil lawsuits for killing or injuring protesters in certain situations, if they were acting in self-defense. Under the bill, a person could not be civilly sued for causing death, personal injury, or property damage if they were acting in self-defense and their actions “arose from another individual’s conduct in furtherance of a riot.” Neither the bill nor existing Michigan law define what would constitute “conduct in furtherance of a riot,” a vague phrase that could cover a range of lawful and nonviolent actions connected to a protest that was deemed a “riot,” such as handing out water bottles or joining in a protest chant. If enacted, the bill could encourage violence by drivers and others against people who are participating in or supporting a protest.

Status: pending

Introduced 13 Aug 2025.

Issue(s): Driver Immunity, Riot

HB 4664: Heightened penalties for highway protests

Would increase the penalty for protesters who obstruct traffic on roads that are classified as highways. Under the bill, anyone who blocks or otherwise “interfere[s] with the normal flow” of traffic on a “highway” while participating in “an assembly of 10 or more individuals” commits a misdemeanor, punishable by up to 93 days in jail and a $5,000 fine. Current law provides that the offense is a civil infraction, subject to fines of up to $500. “Highways” in Michigan include streets that run through cities and have stoplights, such that protesters whose demonstration paused traffic on certain streets could face jail time if the bill were enacted.

Status: pending

Introduced 17 Jun 2025; Approved by House 16 September 2025

Issue(s): Traffic Interference

A 5555: New penalties for protest funders and disclosure requirements for bail funds

Would create a broad new felony that can cover donors and others who fund protests, including largely peaceful demonstrations, and require groups that provide bail or legal defense support to protesters to register with the state. Under the bill, it is a third-degree felony, punishable by 3 to 5 years in prison, if a person “knowingly provides, solicits, transfers, directs, arranges, or otherwise supplies” financial assistance or “assets” with the purpose of “facilitating” or “promoting” conduct that constitutes “disorderly conduct” or “riot.” The person need not be present at the protest to be convicted. “Disorderly conduct” and “riot” are defined broadly under New Jersey law; “disorderly conduct,” for instance, includes “tumultuous conduct” and using “unreasonably loud and offensively coarse” language in public, which could cover some noisy but peaceful protests. If enacted, the bill could create significant criminal liability for any funder who knowingly donates to someone with the purpose of “facilitating” or “promoting” such protests, which could deter individuals and nonprofits from supporting protest activity. The bill separately requires any organization that provides bail assistance or legal defense funding to individuals arrested in connection with riot or disorderly conduct offenses to register with the state and disclose its principal funding sources. Failure to register within 48 hours after providing such support would be a misdemeanor, with subsequent offenses a felony punishable by up to 18 months in prison. These requirements and potential liability could deter bail funds and legal defense organizations from assisting arrested demonstrators, and discourage donors from supporting them.

Status: pending

Introduced 24 Sep 2026.

Issue(s): Protest Supporters or Funders, Riot

S 1319 / A 4363: Expanded "riot" definition, new penalties for "incitement to riot," and new legal defense for people who hurt protesters

Would expand the legal definition of "riot," a third degree offense under the bill, to include any group of three or more individuals whose shared intent to engage in disorderly and violent conduct results in "imminent danger" of property damage or personal injury, or actual damage or injury. Notably, the new definition does not require that the individuals' conduct be disorderly or violent, or that they commit any actual damage or injury. Under the bill, a "riot" consisting of 25 or more people, or one that "endangers the safe movement of a vehicle," is automatically an "aggravated riot," a new crime of the second degree under the bill. As such, large groups of protesters or ones that block traffic, even temporarily, could face up to 10 years in prison, a fine of up to $150,000, or both. Under the bill, "inciting" someone to participate in a riot is a crime of the third degree, punishable by 5 years in prison. "Aggravated incitement," which results if there is property damage over $5,000 is a crime of the second degree, punishable by up to 10 years in prison. The bill also creates a new criminal offense of "mob intimidation," defined as a group of three or more people who act with a "common intent" to compel "or attempt to compel" another person to "do or refrain from doing any act," or "assume, abandon, or maintain a particular viewpoint" against their will. The offense is punishable by up to 6 months in jail and a $1,000 fine. The bill could also encourage violence against protesters by creating a new affirmative defense in civil lawsuits for personal injury, death, or property damage, such that a defendant could avoid liability by establishing that the injury, death, or damage they committed "arose from" conduct by someone "acting in furtherance of a riot." Finally, the bill creates a new civil right of action against a municipal government that fails to provide "respond appropriately to protect persons and property during a riot or unlawful assembly," making them civilly liable for damages, including personal injury or property damage. These provisions, if enacted, could encourage municipal governments to adopt overly aggressive law enforcement responses to protests in order to avoid lawsuits. The same bill was proposed as S 399/A 4714 in 2024.

Status: pending

Introduced 13 Jan 2026.

Issue(s): Driver Immunity, Riot, Traffic Interference, State Liability, Stand Your Ground

S 763 / A 737: Heightened penalties for blocking traffic, riot, disorderly conduct, and related offenses

Would make it a felony offense to purposely or recklessly obstruct a public road while engaging in "disorderly conduct" or a "riot," punishable by up to 18 months in prison and a $10,000 fine. Both "disorderly conduct" and "riot" are defined broadly under New Jersey law: "Disorderly conduct," for instance, could include "recklessly creating a risk" of "public inconvenience" by causing a "hazardous condition," or using "unreasonably loud and offensively coarse" language in a public place. The bill would also broaden the definition of "riot," such that a group of seven or more people who engage in "disorderly conduct" and cause any damage to property could face riot charges, a felony punishable by up to five years in prison and $15,000. The bill would create a new felony offense for disorderly conduct in a "place of public accommodation" that is committed during a "riot." It would also establish a felony offense for chalking or using graffiti on a public monument during an unruly protest: Current law penalizes purposely defacing or damaging any public monument or structure as a disorderly persons offense, subject to six months in jail. The bill would make the same offense a felony punishable by a year and a half in prison and $10,000, if committed during a "riot." The same bill was proposed as S652/A4610 in the 2024-2025 session. 

Status: pending

Introduced 13 Jan 2026.

Issue(s): Riot, Traffic Interference

S 2397 / A 298: New penalties for blocking traffic and other protest-adjacent conduct

Would make it a felony offense to purposely or recklessly obstruct a public road while engaging in "disorderly conduct" or a "riot," punishable by up to a year and a half in prison and a $10,000 fine. Both "disorderly conduct" and "riot" are defined broadly under New Jersey law: "Disorderly conduct," for instance, could include "recklessly creating a risk of public inconvenience" by causing a "hazardous condition," or using "unreasonably loud and offensively coarse" language in a public place. The bill would also broaden the definition of "riot," such that a group of five or more people who engage in "disorderly conduct" and cause any damage to property or persons could face riot charges, a felony punishable by up to five years in prison and $15,000. Individuals who deface a monument during an unruly protest would also face heightened penalties under the bill: Current law penalizes defacing or damaging any public monument or structure as a disorderly persons offense, subject to six months in jail. The bill would make the same offense a felony punishable by a year and a half in prison and $10,000, if committed during a "riot." The bill would create new sanctions for protest organizers and patrons, as well: Under the bill, a person who "conspires with others as an organizer, supervisor, financier or manager to commit" one of a number of crimes during a protest would be guilty of "promotion of violent, disorderly assembly" and face enhanced criminal penalties. The same bill was introduced as S834/A3489 in the 2024-2025 session.

Status: pending

Introduced 13 Jan 2026.

Issue(s): Protest Supporters or Funders, Riot, Traffic Interference

S 1038 / A 1277: New penalties for protesters who conceal their identity

Would create a new disorderly persons offense "for a person, while congregating in a public place with other people who are also masked or disguised, to wear any mask or other facial obscurant or disguise with the purpose to conceal the person's identity while committing another crime or offense." The bill creates exemptions for activities related to Halloween, the weather, religious beliefs, medical purposes, or a public parade of an educational, religious, or historical character. However, it does not create an exemption for protests. As such, one engaged in identical conduct during a Halloween celebration and a protest would not face criminal liability under this proposed offense during the Halloween celebration, but could face criminal liability under this proposed offense during a demonstration. The penalty under the bill is up to 6 months in jail and a $1,000 fine. The same bill was introduced as S3578/A4804 in the 2024-2025 session.  

Status: pending

Introduced 13 Jan 2026.

Issue(s): Face Covering

SB 53: New civil liability for protesters and supporters

Would make protesters, organizers, and funders civilly liable for damage and injury even if they did not personally cause it. Under the bill, someone whose property is damaged or who is injured as the result of a “riot” or “vandalism” offense could sue anyone who engaged in the offense. They could also sue “any person or organization who provided material support or resources with the intent that the material support or resources would be used to perpetuate” the offense. A civil suit under the bill could proceed regardless of whether the defendant was charged or convicted of committing “riot” or “vandalism,” and damages would include repairing the property or injury, as well as providing compensation for emotional distress, court costs, attorney’s fees, and “other reasonable expenses.” Ohio’s definition of “riot” requires only five people engaged in “disorderly conduct” with an unlawful purpose – to commit a misdemeanor, to impede a government function, or “hinder” the “orderly process” of administration or instruction at an educational institution. “Disorderly conduct” is likewise broadly defined as “recklessly caus[ing] inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm to another,” through means including “making unreasonable noise” or “hindering” movement of people on streets. As such, if the bill were enacted, participants in noisy or disruptive but nonviolent protests, as well as people and organizations that support them, could face expensive lawsuits. The bill also bars government officials from limiting law enforcement's authority to quell a "riot" or "vandalism," or to arrest or detain individuals involved in either offense. The same bill was introduced as SB 267 in the 2023-2024 session.

Status: pending

Introduced 28 Jan 2025.

Issue(s): Civil Liability, Protest Supporters or Funders, Police Response, Riot

HB 1831: New penalties for masked protesters

Would make it a crime to demonstrate while wearing a mask in some circumstances. Under the bill, it would be a third-degree misdemeanor to wear a mask or other device to conceal one’s face, voice, or identity while in a public place. The bill provides for certain exemptions, including “traditional holiday costumes,” masks worn for religious purposes, medical masks worn to prevent the spread of disease, as well as costumes and masks worn during a “parade, ritual, initiation, ceremony, celebration or similar type of gathering” for which a permit has been obtained. It is not clear whether the last category of exemptions would apply to masks worn during permitted protests, and no exemption in the bill would cover masks worn during spontaneous or otherwise unpermitted protests. If enacted, a demonstrator wearing a mask to avoid retaliation for their participation in a spontaneous protest could face up to a year in jail. Sponsors of the bill have said that the legislation is directed at pro-Palestine protesters who have worn masks.

Status: pending

Introduced 8 Oct 2025.

Issue(s): Face Covering

SB 913: Increased penalties for certain offenses if combined with "riot"

Would make a violation of the state's law on "riot" an aggravating factor for sentencing of certain other crimes. Under the bill, steeper criminal penalties would apply, for instance, to the offense of trespass, if the offense was committed while the defendent engaged in a protest that was deemed a "riot." Pennsylvania law defines "riot" broadly to include participating in "disorderly conduct" with two or more people with intent to facilitate a misdemeanor--a definition that could cover, for instance, a noisy protest that involves a misdemeanor offense like blocking the sidewalk. As a result, under the bill, someone who trespasses while part of such a protest could face additional prison time. 

Status: pending

Introduced 31 Jul 2025.

Issue(s): Riot, Trespass

SB 915: New felony penalties for protest organizers and funders

Would create a new felony offense for knowingly organizing, controlling, or financing a "riot." The bill defines "financing" as "contributing more than a de minimus amount of money or materials to aid in a riot"; "organizing" is defined as "knowingly arranging or planning" a riot. Pennsylvania law defines "riot" broadly to include participating in "disorderly conduct" with two or more people with intent to facilitate a misdemeanor--a definition that could cover, for instance, a noisy protest of three people that involves a misdemeanor like blocking the sidewalk. As a result, under the bill, someone who knowingly plans such a protest, or donates to an advocacy group to support such a protest, could face up to seven years in prison. 

Status: pending

Introduced 31 Jul 2025.

Issue(s): Protest Supporters or Funders, Riot

SB 683: New penalties for protests near pipelines and other infrastructure

Would create several new criminal offenses that could cover fossil fuel protesters and protest organizers. Under the bill, “conspir[ing] with another person” to trespass onto “critical infrastructure” property would be a third-degree misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in jail and a minimum $5,000 fine. The bill defines “critical infrastructure” broadly to include a range of posted or fenced-off areas containing facilities for gas and oil production, storage, and distribution, including above- and belowground pipelines, as well as a number of electric, water, telecommunications, and other utilities—whether in operation or under construction. As such, under the bill, planning a protest that would enter onto a pipeline construction site would be a crime punishable by up to a year in jail, even if the protest never takes place. Actually trespassing onto a pipeline construction site or other “critical infrastructure” property would likewise be punishable by up to a year in jail, under the bill, and doing so with intent to “vandalize, deface, tamper with equipment or impede or inhibit operations” would be a third-degree felony, punishable by up to three years in prison. As the bill does not further define “impede or inhibit,” a protest that entered onto a pipeline construction site with the goal of even fleetingly delaying construction could seemingly be covered by the felony offense. Willfully “vandalizing” or “defacing” “critical infrastructure,” or conspiring to do so, would be a third-degree felony as well. The bill further provides that the owner of “critical infrastructure” may sue anyone who is convicted of or merely arrested for an offense under the bill and claim damages for any harm to property, “including damages to pipeline construction."

Status: pending

Introduced 28 Apr 2025.

Issue(s): Civil Liability, Protest Supporters or Funders, Infrastructure, Trespass